Replies

He won't backpedal on the invasion. He'll start doing what he should have done earlier-- laying out intelligence supporting each side of the WMD argument and saying why he agreed with one side and not the other (like his stem cell decision). He'll also talk about the other non-WMD reasons for the invasion. Tim will ask him why did the invasion have to begin in March 2003. I don't know what Bush's response will be.

Which is worse?

A president (Clinton) who believed Saddam posed a threat, that he had WMD and intended to use or sell them, and that regime change was the only way to remove the threat...yet did nothing.

Or a president who received the same intelligence, updated in a post-9/11 world, determined the threat had to be neutralized, and did just that?

People seem to have forgotten Clinton's huge buildup of forces in the Arab deserts in 1998. An enormous invasion force was gathered to force Saddam to allow inspectors in. Then Kofi Annan flew to Baghdad and concluded that he could "do business" with Saddam. Clinton tucked tail and withdrew the forces and...Ba da bing!...Saddam kicked out the inspectors two weeks later. 4 years passed before they would return.

Kerry et al, in their opposition to invasion last year, would've had us repeat that sorry episode. Once again building up forces to force inspections, but heaven forbid we should use them. How happy would we have made Saddam by handing him the opportunity to leave our troops sweltering in the desert with their equipment breaking down and training going stale? In light of the 1998 episode, it wasn't an option. When Bush sent in the forces in late 2002 the only way they were coming home was by way of Baghdad....and everyone knew it, despite what they say today.